Ipso Fatso wrote: The world is what it is.
Where religious 'beliefs' run contrary to reality, then those 'beliefs' are ineffective.
They cannot and will not change anything that is fundamental in this world.

Dear Ipso Fatso:

I wish what you wrote is true. One can ask, what is fundamental in the world?

Crusades have been fought. Wars of different varieties of Christianity and Islam have been fought. They are fought over nonsense – over different fantasies.

Many people have been killed for non-religious nonsense – Nazi racial theories – Lysenkoism.

It is possible that beliefs which deny reality are the greatest force for social change.

The Crusades to my way of thinking were completely irrational, wrong and bloody. However, contact with Arabs brought the thought of the ancient world back to the countries of Europe. The ancient writings and the ancient philosophies of stoicism, cynicism and Epicureanism had been preserved in the Muslim dominions. Contact with the Arabs brought Indian mathematics which included such concepts as decimal notation and the zero to Europe.

That sparked the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution..

WW2 was a continuation of WW1 and also completely irrational, wrong and bloody. Atomic power (a mixed blessing), the United Nations, the decolonization of the European Empires, electronic progress such as computers, space travel and the net were some of the consequences of that conflict.

I think that the Christian religion is nonsense which any reasonable person would reject. At the moment I am reading “Religion and the Rise of Capitalism” by Tawney. The rise of capitalism is a fundamental change in the world, and it is intimately connected with the Christian religion.

From my reading of history irrational religious beliefs contrary to reality have resulted in fundamental changes.

Dear JP,

«Yuyutsu – you make a lot of assertions but provide little, if anything, to back those assertions up.»

I know, that may take quite a bit of time, and intellectual effort on your side.
As you can see, it takes that much just to understand this information, which is so different than the prevailing materialistic model people got used to. No point in trying to back up something before you even understand it.

«Please tell me, why should anybody believe any of what you say is true?»

Why believe? Belief is overrated and often, undeservedly, mistaken for faith - first listen, study, contemplate, ask questions as necessary and observe how it may apply to your life.

«As I have said before, if God is everything then God must be both good and evil.»

Everything is God, not vice-versa.
Good and evil are parts of creation.
It makes no sense to consider good or evil outside creation.
Creation depends on God, but God does not depend on His creation or any element thereof, including good or evil, so it is nonsensical to think of God to be tainted by properties/qualities of His own creation.

In practical terms, when we claim "God is good", normally we don't mean to make an accurate theological statement, but simply to say: "I have faith in God that everything will end up well". To this I wholeheartedly agree.

«Why is nothing as it appears?»

Because our senses evolved to survive in this world, not for finding the Truth, which in worldly terms seems impractical and not worthy of spending resources on.

«Why should everything have to be reinterpreted through your assertions?»

Definitely not *everything*: if you are looking for worldly results then you better stick with material science and if you are looking to become a better person, but not beyond, then you better stick with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But once you feel that you had enough of the world and want to know the ultimate Truth behind it (which is God), then it will help you to investigate these assertions.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«I don't understand why some want to treat atheism and organised religion as if those two things are in a contest.»

When you speak of "organised religion", you first need to consider whether it still is a religion (assuming it once was) - or whether it became an empty shell, religious in name only. It is not surprising that organisations vie with each other for power.

«The world is what it is.
Where religious 'beliefs' run contrary to reality, then those 'beliefs' are ineffective.
They cannot and will not change anything that is fundamental in this world.»

Very well: religious beliefs are not meant to be effective in the sense of changing the world. Religious practice is meant to transform the character and soul of their practitioner.

Religion (but not necessarily every organisation which calls itself "religious") does not run contrary to reality, but rather looks at the underlying deeper aspects of reality.

Let me give you an example: a golden wedding ring.
It has a shape, it has a name ("wedding ring"), it has qualities (smooth, heavy, etc.) and it has a purpose (to be presented at weddings). That is one reality, which is rightfully used in worldly transactions.

But that ring also has a deeper reality: gold!
Even if you melt the ring, gold remains. Shape that gold into a necklace or a watch, keep it in bullion or shape it into thin microchip connectors - gold remains. Gold is one underlying reality of the wedding ring.
Metaphorically, religion is interested in the gold rather than in the ring.

«We can be sad for them, and bemoan their befuddled state.»

We can be sad for materialistic people who only seek the ephemeral, who only invest in such stocks that are bound to crash completely.

---

Dear David F.,

«The rise of capitalism is a fundamental change in the world, and it is intimately connected with the Christian religion.»

The rise of capitalism may be intimately connected with the Christian Church(es), but is/are today's Christian Church(es) still religious?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Christian Churches are by definition religious. You may have a different definition of 'religious' as you have a different definition of many things. I have given up trying to find meaning in your statements. Sometimes you sound coherent. Sometimes not. I have learned from you. I think you are well-meaning. I do not enjoy interacting with you and did because I thought it courteous to respond to your question. I may not respond to future questions.

Dear David F.,

Thank you for replying.

You don't need to respond to me, but would you ask yourself,
"what is it that makes Christian Churches religious?"

As far as I am concerned, being religious cannot consist of just making any empty proclamations that include the word 'God' (and note that Buddhism doesn't do even that): to be considered religious, similar to being considered a doctor or a plumber, there must be some substance, not just words - what is this substance? what would the minimal requirements be?